elections

[DeeDee]

While I don't like to get into religion or politics with anyone...I found a few results very note worthy tonight. South Dakota rejected a really opressive abortion law, for one. Also Eight states had same-sex-marriage amendments on their ballots. Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia joined Wisconsin in approving them, according to projections. Results were pending in Arizona, Colorado and South Dakota. I would have thought that most people would vote against it, but allowing same sex partnerships. After the last number of oppresive years, anything is a plus. Mind you..I cite this as a way to show how voters think now...kinda neat http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/ ... index.html
Deedee

[Maria]

I'm glad that Nancy Pelosi is set to become the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. Pelosi is from San Francisco, which has a diverse community of the transgendered. Last night, Pelosi mentioned in a victory speech that people may agree to disagree, but they must also work together toward a common goal.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/ ... index.html

Maria

[Virginia]

We were working for a "NO" vote on the marriage amendment in Virginia and were shooting for one million "NO" votes! We got slightly over one million, but with the massive turnout we still lost, but the support was there and it is growing!!!! We are making progress it will just take time for these holier-than-thou, bible thumpers to understand, "We ain't going away!!"
Love,
Virginia

[KimberlyS]

... rejected a really opressive abortion law, for one. Also Eight states had same-sex-marriage amendments on their ballots....
Deedee

If you thought it was nuts just hearing about it you should have been here. I think we had more people out of state here campaining for and against these two ballot issues than people from within the state. Both are definatly more national issues rather than just local or state issues.

BTW, still ok for abortion here, but we know have a Definition of Marriage.

So it is ok to have an abortion, but if you kill a mother while pregnat you can be charged with a double murder. If you are drunk or otherwise and cause an accident and the mother is hurt to the point she looses her unborn child you can be charged with vehicular homocide. Only government laws would have such conflicting laws.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in SD. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationships shall not be valid or recognized in SD."

I always thought marriage was a religion term meaning a man and a wife. Not sure why government is trying to redefine and mix this term with any type of civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationships (what every a quasi-marital relationship is). So my guess our states next job is now to define what a quasi-marital relationship is. So if you are not married but living with an SO, you may want to stay clear of here for awhile until it is resolved. I see a court battle coming up about a man and woman living together or even in the same house, or similar situation, but not married. They may outlaw that next.

Or even how about a man and a woman married and one of them is a cd,tg,ts. Would this be a quasi-marital relationship giving wifes or husbands grounds for divorce or even declared never married. I hear a can of worms opening up......

And I am not going to argue either side of these issues here. PM me if you want to do that. I just find it interestion how much government policy, laws, and function, conflict and go different directions. I also find what seems to be a lack of thought put into many of the issues that were on our ballot. I am beginning to think it is too easy to get things put on a ballot. Because if you think some of the state ballot issues were strange, our local ones were worse.

KimberlyS-CD